Search This Site

GFP on YouTube

GFP on Twitter

Syndicate

In USA….

Linda Bell, a beekeeper and farmer who makes about $11,000 a year, feels Washington power brokers have no intention of making health care affordable.

“They don’t care about people like me,” says the Bosque County, Texas, resident.

Three-quarters of Americans agree that people like themselves have too little influence in Washington, rare unanimity across political, economic, racial and geographical lines and including both those who approve and disapprove of Donald Trump, according to a new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Majorities also don’t have a great deal of confidence in most of the nation’s institutions. That’s especially true of Congress, which takes the biggest hit, and the presidency.

Even at a time of deepening economic and political divisions, the poll finds widespread agreement that small businesses, poor Americans and workers have too little power in Washington, while lobbyists, big business and rich people have too much.

The results are notable because Trump won his presidency with a populist call-to-arms to make “forgotten Americans” his priority and to restore jobs to people still struggling amid the economy’s recovery. Republicans who control Congress echoed Trump’s vow to overhaul President Barack Obama’s national health care law and cut people’s taxes as part of a drive to restore the American middle class. Those efforts have wobbled, however, amid Trump’s efforts to crack down on Muslim immigration, his feud-filled Twitter feed, investigations into allegations of collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign and Congress’ inability so far to come up with a replacement for “Obamacare.”

“He said he was going to restore the middle class, and I thought he would pick really good people who would do that. But the people he picked seem to be not in touch with the middle class,” said Hobart, Indiana, resident James Pavelka, 60, a health and safety instructor who said he voted for Trump. He was referring to Trump’s Cabinet, thought to be the wealthiest in modern times. “During the campaign, he said, ‘I’m for the little guy.’ People were angry and he fed on that and he knew how to do that.”

It’s not just Trump who makes people feel like they lack power.

Only 6 percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in Congress, with wide agreement across party lines.

Fourteen percent of people said they have a great deal of confidence in the executive branch, which includes the president and all of the Cabinet agencies, and 24 percent say the same of the Supreme Court.

Most Americans feel solid about the armed forces, with about 56 percent saying they have a great deal of confidence in the people running the military.

About 3 in 10 Americans say they have a great deal of confidence in the FBI, and a third says the same of the scientific community. Both are trusted more by Democrats than Republicans.

Beyond government, only about 11 percent of Americans say they have a lot of confidence in the news media, the target of angry tweets by Trump.

And just 1 in 10 says they have a great deal of confidence in major companies, banks and financial institutions, or labor unions.

There’s no question that Trump, a Manhattan real estate magnate with a global business empire, has little personally in common with the majority of people in the U.S., where the median household income is around $54,000 a year. But Jennifer McDonald, an office manager from Arvada, Colorado, says the president shares her loathing of the Washington establishment. Still, she says she’s disappointed in Trump’s “hissy fits” on Twitter and downright angry with the leaders of Congress who share her party but not her priorities of “just getting things done”— such as cutting taxes and replacing Obama’s health care law.

“There are times when I’m watching them and thinking, ‘I just don’t know who you’re speaking for,’” McDonald, 44, says of the GOP Congress. “All they do is stand there and argue and I think, ‘My God, would you please realize what you have here: You have control of both houses. Get it done.’”

Bell, the 55-year-old Texas beekeeper, says she still likes Trump because “he’s scrappy. I like someone who’s a little scrappy.” It’s early in Trump’s administration, she notes, “and I do believe he has more respect for people like me than has been shown in the past.” But she doubts any health care law Congress passes and Trump signs is going to make it easier for her to afford insurance — which she says would eat up $675 of the roughly $881 she nets every month.

“They are not thinking about people, they are thinking about politics,” Bell said of Washington power brokers. “It’s kind of like I accepted when I was in my early 20s that, OK, I’m going to be lied-to coming out of Washington, and I have been.”

___

The AP-NORC poll of 1,068 adults was conducted June 8-11 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

► How severe, ongoing stress can affect a child’s brain

A quiet, unsmiling little girl with big brown eyes crawls inside a carpeted cubicle, hugs a stuffed teddy bear tight, and turns her head away from the noisy classroom.

The safe spaces, quiet times and breathing exercises for her and the other preschoolers at the Verner Center for Early Learning are designed to help kids cope with intense stress so they can learn. But experts hope there’s an even bigger benefit — protecting young bodies and brains from stress so persistent that it becomes toxic.

It’s no secret that growing up in tough circumstances can be hard on kids and lead to behavior and learning problems. But researchers are discovering something different. Many believe that ongoing stress during early childhood — from grinding poverty, neglect, parents’ substance abuse and other adversity — can smolder beneath the skin, harming kids’ brains and other body systems. And research suggests that can lead to some of the major causes of death and disease in adulthood, including heart attacks and diabetes.

“The damage that happens to kids from the infectious disease of toxic stress is as severe as the damage from meningitis or polio or pertussis,” says Dr. Tina Hahn, a pediatrician in rural Caro, Michigan. She says her No. 1 goal as a physician is to prevent toxic stress. Hahn routinely questions families about stresses at home, educates them about the risks and helps them find ways to manage.

Mounting research on potential biological dangers of toxic stress is prompting a new public health approach to identifying and treating the effects of poverty, neglect, abuse and other adversity. While some in the medical community dispute that research, pediatricians, mental health specialists, educators and community leaders are increasingly adopting what is called “trauma-informed” care.

The approach starts with the premise that extreme stress or trauma can cause brain changes that may interfere with learning, explain troubling behavior, and endanger health. The goal is to identify affected children and families and provide services to treat or prevent continued stress. This can include parenting classes, addiction treatment for parents, school and police-based programs and psychotherapy.

Many preschoolers who mental health specialist Laura Martin works with at the Verner Center have been in and out of foster homes or they live with parents struggling to make ends meet or dealing with drug and alcohol problems, depression or domestic violence.

They come to school in “fight or flight” mode, unfocused and withdrawn or aggressive, sometimes kicking and screaming at their classmates. Instead of adding to that stress with aggressive discipline, the goal is to take stress away.

“We know that if they don’t feel safe then they can’t learn,” Martin said. By creating a safe space, one goal of programs like Verner’s is to make kids’ bodies more resilient to biological damage from toxic stress, she said.

Many of these kids “never know what’s going to come next” at home. But at school, square cards taped at kids’ eye level remind them in words and pictures that lunch is followed by quiet time, then a snack, then hand-washing and a nap. Breathing exercises have kids roar like a lion or hiss like a snake to calm them. A peace table helps angry kids work out conflicts with their classmates.

The brain and disease-fighting immune system are not fully formed at birth and are potentially vulnerable to damage from childhood adversity, recent studies have shown. The first three years are thought to be the most critical, and children lacking nurturing parents or other close relatives to help them cope with adversity are most at risk.

Under normal stress situations — for a young child that could be getting a shot or hearing a loud thunderstorm — the stress response kicks in, briefly raising heart rate and levels of cortisol and other stress hormones. When stress is severe and ongoing, those levels may remain elevated, putting kids in a persistent “fight or flight” mode, said Harvard University neuroscientist Charles Nelson.

Recent studies suggest that kind of stress changes the body’s metabolism and contributes to internal inflammation, which can raise risk for developing diabetes and heart disease. In 2015, Brown University researchers reported finding elevated levels of inflammatory markers in saliva of children who had experienced abuse or other adversity.

Experiments in animals and humans also suggest persistent stress may alter brain structure in regions affecting emotions and regulating behavior. Nelson and others have done imaging studies showing these regions are smaller than usual in severely traumatized children.

Nelson’s research on neglected children in Romanian orphanages suggests that early intervention might reverse damage from toxic stress. Orphans sent to live with nurturing foster families before age 2 had imaging scans several years later showing their brains looked similar to those of kids who were never institutionalized. By contrast, children sent to foster care at later ages had less gray matter and their brains looked more like those of children still in orphanages.

Toxic stress is not the same as post-traumatic stress disorder. PTSD is a distinct mental condition that can result from an extremely traumatic event, including combat, violence or sexual abuse. Experts say it can occur in adults and children who live with persistent toxic stress, including children in war-torn countries, urban kids who’ve been shot or live in violence-plagued neighborhoods, and those who have been physically or sexually abused.

The toxic stress theory has become mainstream, but there are skeptics, including Tulane University psychiatrist Dr. Michael Scheeringa, an expert in childhood PTSD. Scheeringa says studies supporting the idea are weak, based mostly on observations, without evidence of how the brain looked before the trauma.

The American Academy of Pediatrics supports the theory and in 2012 issued recommendations urging pediatricians to educate parents and the public about the long-term consequences of toxic stress and to push for new policies and treatments to prevent it or reduce its effects.

In a 2016 policy noting a link between poverty and toxic stress, the academy urged pediatricians to routinely screen families for poverty and to help those affected find food pantries, homeless shelters and other resources.

“The science of how poverty actually gets under kids’ skin and impacts a child has really been exploding,” said Dr. Benard Dreyer, a former president of the academy.

Some pediatricians and schools routinely screen children and families for toxic stress, but it is not universal, said John Fairbank, co-director of the National Center for Child Traumatic Stress. “That’s certainly an aspiration. It would be a big step forward,” said Fairbank, a Duke University psychiatry professor.

Much of the recent interest stems from landmark U.S. government-led research published in 1998 called the Adverse Childhood Experiences study. It found that adults exposed to neglect, poverty, violence, substance abuse, parents’ mental illness and other domestic dysfunction were more likely than others to have heart problems, diabetes, depression and asthma.

A follow-up 2009 study found that adults with six or more adverse childhood experiences died nearly 20 years earlier than those with none.

Some children seem resistant to effects from toxic stress. Harvard’s Nelson works with a research network based at Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child that is seeking to find telltale biomarkers in kids who are affected — in saliva, blood or hair —that could perhaps be targets for drugs or other treatment to prevent or reduce stress-related damage.

That research is promising but results are likely years off, says Dr. Jack Shonkoff, the center’s director.

Alvin and Natalie Clarke brought their young grandchildren into their Cass City, Michigan home after their parents jailed on drug charges. The 6-year-old grandson hits, yells, breaks toys, misbehaves in school. His 4-year-old sister used to have nightmares and recoil in fear when her baby doll was left alone on the floor — signs her therapists say suggest memories of neglect.

The Clarkes had never heard the term “toxic stress” when they were granted guardianship in 2015. Now it’s a frequent topic in a support group they’ve formed for other grandparent-guardians.

Their grandson’s therapists say he has PTSD and behavior problems likely stemming from toxic stress. Around strangers he’s sometimes quiet and polite but the Clarkes say he has frequent tantrums at home and school and threatens his sister. He gets frightened at night and worries people are coming to hurt him, Natalie Clarke said.

Weekly sessions with a trauma-focused therapist have led to small improvements in the boy. The Clarkes say he needs more help but that treatment is costly and his school isn’t equipped to offer it.

The little girl has flourished with help from Early Head Start behavior specialists who have worked with her and the Clarkes at home and school.

The nation’s governors gather this week amid great uncertainties for their states — on health care, solutions to the opioid overdose epidemic, even how to address the effects of climate change without help from the federal government.

Proposed changes to the nation’s existing health care law will be front and center as Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate seek ways to salvage their overhaul effort.

Governors from both parties have spoken out against elements of the most recent bill, which could have enormous consequences for the states. Their nonpartisan group, the National Governors Association, has called on the Senate to give governors a say in shaping any reforms.

Their summer meeting begins Thursday in Providence and will include an address by Mike Pence.

Governors in states that expanded Medicaid under former President Barack Obama’s health care law are especially concerned as Republicans in Congress try to make good on their repeated promises to repeal and replace the law.

A bill that passed the House and one proposed in the Senate eventually would phase out the federal subsidy that most states used to expand Medicaid coverage to low-income adults who don’t have children at home. The expansion has provided coverage to about 11 million Americans in 31 states.

The GOP bills also would cap how much the federal government would pay for state-run Medicaid programs in the future while giving states more say over how to use the money they do receive. Medicaid is the biggest source of federal revenue for states and is among the largest expenses in most state budgets.

“It’s important for us to figure out a way to speak with one voice to the Trump administration to explain that this is going to hurt a lot of people in a lot of states, regardless of whether there’s a Democrat or Republican in the governor’s mansion,” said Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo, a Democrat who is hosting the summit.

Reaching a consensus on the future of the Affordable Care Act is proving difficult, in part because some states expanded their Medicaid programs while others did not. Those that did not also would have to grapple with the cuts to Medicaid overall.

In either case, states would have to figure out how to afford coverage for low-income residents or deal with people who would go without insurance and turn up in emergency rooms when they needed care.

Yet many governors also face turmoil in their state’s private health insurance market, as people who do not get coverage through their employer or Medicaid have faced skyrocketing premiums and fewer choices.

Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, a Republican, said she wants Congress “to get something done” on replacing the Affordable Care Act but declined to offer specifics. In Iowa and many other states, steep losses have forced carriers to exit the insurance exchanges set up under the Obama-era law.

Governors prefer a bipartisan approach to any changes, said Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican who works with a Legislature controlled by Democrats.

“Many times, one of the big messages we deliver to our colleagues in Washington is you should all try to work a little harder to get along with one another and find common ground,” he told reporters Tuesday when asked about the health care debate.

Governors from more than 30 states and the territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have said they will attend the gathering in Rhode Island. A governors-only session will give the chief executives a chance to ask questions of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Seema Verma, the administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Medicaid funding is a key topic for governors for another reason: It’s become essential in states’ ability to address the opioid addiction crisis. Discussing the widespread problem of overdoses from prescription painkillers and illicit drugs such as heroin and fentanyl is on the meeting’s agenda.

Also up for discussion is how to move forward on ways to combat climate change after the Trump administration said it would pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate pact.

Raimondo, the Rhode Island governor, said she wants to see governors collectively say they will commit their states to the Paris standards and thinks they can work directly with world leaders to address the problem.

Among those expected to attend is Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who is scheduled to speak about international collaboration and has said he wants to find common solutions on climate change.

Trudeau has said he was “deeply disappointed” with Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement. Foreign dignitaries have attended the association’s meetings in recent years, though not heads of government.

► Is Pence betting against Trump re-election?

Mike Pence is spending considerable time cultivating big-money Republican donors at small, private events, including hedge fund managers and executives from brokerage houses, chemical giants and defense contractors, Ken Vogel reports at the New York Times. Many of these events, whose participants are kept secret from the media and are omitted from Pence’s public schedule, have been taking place at the vice-presidential residence at the Naval Observatory, as well as other nongovernment venues.

While cultivating support from deep-pocketed business interests is nothing new in GOP politics, Pence’s activities raise the question of whether he is doing this for Trump-Pence 2020 - or for himself. As Vogel’s piece points out, Pence’s intimate confabs with wealthy donors and conservative power brokers “have fueled speculation among Republican insiders that he is laying the foundation for his own political future, independent from Mr. Trump.“

All of this suggests something important about Trump. Despite Pence’s protestations to the contrary, the vice president looks to be preparing for his own political future. Beyond this clear signal about his own political ambitions, Pence’s actions raise the question of whether he has lost confidence in Trump’s ability to come out of the Russia investigation unscathed.

This is not the first time that Pence, in his short tenure as Trump’s vice president, has sparked chatter about his political ambitions - unyoked from Trump. In May, Pence filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission, forming his own political action committee, the Great America Committee, marking “the first time a sitting vice president has formed such a separate political arm,“ NBC News reported at the time.

The Great America Committee is apparently not wasting any time. Vogel reports that last Thursday, it “held a reception for prospective donors at the Washington offices of the powerful lobbying firm BGR.“

In holding donor events, Great America Committee will do nothing to quell speculation about Pence’s intentions. When he first launched the PAC in May, Pence aides attempted to play down the move by saying its resources will be used to support Republican congressional candidates in the 2018 midterms. But that characterization didn’t diminish how unusual this was: Traditionally, vice presidents tap the resources of their party to support congressional candidates, rather than create their own fundraising organization.

It’s highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for a first-term vice president to appear to separate his election activities, even if aimed at congressional races, from the president he serves. But the timing of Pence’s formation of the Great America Committee suggests the move may have something to do with judgments about Trump’s future, too.

Pence filed the paperwork on May 17, eight days after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, and the same day that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein appointed Robert S. Mueller III to be special counsel in the Russia investigation. Indeed, the two weeks before Pence filed the Great America papers were rife with some of the most explosive news stories about the Russia scandal to date.

To review: On May 8, former acting attorney general Sally Yates testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the White House kept former national security adviser Michael Flynn for 18 days after she told the White House counsel that he was vulnerable to Russian blackmail. (Pence has always sought to distance himself from the Flynn affair: After Trump asked for Flynn’s resignation in February, Pence maintained that Flynn misled him about the conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, playing the part of the duped, but loyal, soldier.)

Then, after that Yates testimony on May 08, Trump engaged in probably the most self-destructive sequence of actions of his presidency. On May 9, he fired Comey. The next day, he met with Kislyak and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in the Oval Office, telling them that firing the “real nut job” Comey had eased “great pressure” on him from the Russia investigation. And the day after that, Trump admitted on national television that he had fired Comey because of the “Russia thing.“ Finally, on May 12, Trump posted his tweet hinting that he may have recorded his conversations with Comey. (He hadn’t.)

One week later, Pence filed the Great America Committee papers, marking his break with the traditional arrangement for political fundraising between presidents and vice presidents.

The traditional arrangement is based on the expectation that the president and vice president will together run for reelection. But Pence’s activities seem to signal doubts about whether there will even be a Trump-Pence ticket to run in 2020. We are not yet six months into Trump’s term, and each new revelation in the burgeoning Russia investigation seems to heighten the possibility that Trump could either no longer be president, or at least no longer be a viable reelection candidate, in 2020.

Pence is perhaps preparing for just that potentiality. If he were confident that the Russia investigation is “fake news” or a “hoax,“ as Trump has maintained, he would be hewing to the traditional vice-presidential path. Instead, he’s making his own plans – which may show just how worried he is that the Russia investigation is going to come crashing down on his president.

► House panel lifts ban on slaughtering horses for meat

A House panel has voted to lift a ban on slaughtering horses at meat processing plants.

The move by the House Appropriations Committee would reverse a horse slaughter ban that was contained in a huge catchall spending bill signed into law by Trump in early May.

A move to renew the slaughter ban, pushed by California Democrat Lucille Roybal-Allard, was defeated by a 27-25 vote.

The Horse slaughter ban has mostly been in force for more than a decade. The ban is enforced by blocking the Agriculture Department from providing inspectors at meat plants that slaughter horses and is in place through September 30.

There are currently no horse slaughter facilities operating in the U.S.

The vote came as the panel approved a Department of Agriculture funding bill.

► NYC launches $32 million plan to reduce rat population

New York City announced a $32 million, multi-agency plan on Wednesday to reduce its rat population.

Mayor Bill de Blasio said the plan will target rats in the Grand Concourse area of the Bronx; Chinatown, the East Village and the Lower East Side in Manhattan; and the Bushwick and Bedford-Stuyvesant areas of Brooklyn.

By September, the city will start installing solar compactors with rat-resistant openings and replacing wire waste baskets with steel cans. It also plans to cement basement floors in public housing. Proposed legislation would regulate the hours garbage could be left at the curb, and increase fines for illegal dumping.

In February, health officials said one person had died and two others were severely sickened in a Bronx neighborhood due to a rare disease transmitted by rats.

The city’s rat battle is far from new. Experts say it’s impossible to accurately estimate the number, though they say efforts in recent years have greatly reduced “active rat signs.”

In 2014, a Columbia University doctoral student using statistical analysis estimated the number of rats in the city at 2 million, claiming to debunk a popular theory that there is one rat for each of the city’s 8½ million people.

That year, the Health Department piloted a “Rat Reservoir” program in six sites in Manhattan and the Bronx, targeting colonies and conditions conducive to rats in sidewalks, catch basins, tree pits and parks, in addition to buildings. In 2015, funding for the program was increased by $2.9 million.

“While New York City has made important strides to curb the rodent population, it’s clear more needs to be done to significantly and permanently reduce the scourge of rats across the five boroughs,” City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito said.

► FDA advisers review data on potential 1st U.S. gene therapy

A panel of cancer experts on Wednesday reviewed what could be the first gene therapy approved in the U.S.

The Food and Drug Administration advisory panel discussed a treatment for advanced leukemia developed by the University of Pennsylvania and Novartis Corp. The drugmaker is seeking approval to use the one-time treatment for children and young adults.

The therapy could be the first of a wave of treatments custom-made to target a patient’s cancer. Called CAR-T, it involves removing immune cells from a patients’ blood, reprogramming them to create an army of cells that can recognize and destroy cancer and injecting them back into the patient.

The panel is set to vote on the treatment Wednesday. The FDA is not required to follow the panel’s recommendation but often does.

After decades of setbacks and disappointments in efforts to fix, replace, or change genes to cure diseases, several companies are near the finish line in a race to bring CAR-T and other types of gene therapy to patients. Kite Pharma also has a CAR-T therapy in FDA review and Juno Therapeutics and others are in late stages of testing.

Novartis is seeking approval to use the treatment for patients aged 3 to 25 with a blood cancer called acute lymphoblastic leukemia, or ALL, whose disease has spread or failed to respond to standard treatment. That happens to more than 600 patients in the U.S. each year. At that point, they have limited options, and survival chances are slim. ALL is the most common childhood cancer, accounting for a quarter of all cancers in children under age 15.

In a key test, results were far better than chemotherapy and even newer types of cancer drugs. Of the 52 patients whose results were analyzed, 83 percent had complete remission, meaning their cancer vanished. Most patients suffered serious side effects but nearly all recovered.

CAR-T therapy starts with filtering key immune cells called T cells from a patient’s blood. In a lab, a gene is then inserted into the T cells that prompts them to grow a receptor that targets a special marker found on some blood cancers. Millions of copies of the new T cells are grown in the lab and then injected into the patient’s bloodstream where they can seek out and destroy cancer cells. Doctors call it a “living drug” — permanently altered cells that continue to multiply in the body into an army to fight the disease.

During the patient testing, the whole process took about 16 weeks, which can be too long a wait for some desperately ill patients, the FDA advisers noted during the meeting in Silver Spring, Maryland. Drug company officials said they can now produce a treatment and get it to a patient in about three weeks.

The cost of CAR-T therapy is likely to be hundreds of thousands of dollars, but it’s only given once. Typically, cancer patients take one or more drugs until they stop working, then switch to a other drugs, so treatment — and side effects — can go on for years.

Short-term side effects, including fever and hallucinations, are often intense as the body’s revved up immune system goes on the attack. The long-term side effects of the treatment are unknown. It’s also unclear if patients whose cancer goes into remission will be cured or will have their cancer return eventually.

Other biotech and pharmaceutical companies are developing types of gene therapy to treat solid cancers and rare gene-linked diseases. A few products have been approved elsewhere — one for head and neck cancer in China in 2004 and two in Europe, most recently GlaxoSmithKline’s Strimvelis. That was approved last year for a deadly condition called severe combined immunodeficiency and launched with a $670,000 price tag. UniQure’s Glybera was approved for a rare enzyme disorder. It was used only once in five years, likely due to its $1 million-plus price tag, so uniQure is pulling it from the market.

Health care in this country continues to be a hot topic. I don’t know if the people is Washington are going to be able to “get it done”. I’m so fearful that they are going to take away Medicaid/medicare and other federally funded programs. I’m really concerned about the older folks as well as the younger folks. They’ll be hurt the most.

The younger folks will be impacted greatly because they’re the ones taking all these crazy drugs. This opioid overdose epidemic is out of control. People are dying in my community. I’m well off, so I’ll be able to care for my kids if they try heroin (god forbid!) but so many people can’t say the same. Addiction is rampant and opiates are everywhere. What will people do if our healthcare gets worse? Personally, I’m already saving up for the possibility that my kids will need to go to rehab…and not some state run nonsense, but something really alternative that I’ve been hearing about called Ibogaine. People say this is the miracle cure for addiction. Of course I’m not that naive, but I’m willing to give it a try in the future if my kids need it. There will be no overdose in my family.

If you’re concerned like I am take a look at the treatment I’m talking about. I think we parents need to start sharing more and hiding less. No more pretending like everything is perfect when it isn’t…ASK FOR HELP. Here’s the place I will send me kids if they get into drugs: https://ibogainemexico.com/ibogaine-therapy-for-drug-addiction/